4 ms·
With the now relatively-low price of SSDs, I don't personally see a huge need for this. Maybe 4+ years ago, but not now.
by markherhold 11y ago
With the now relatively-low price of SSDs, I don't personally see a huge need for this. Maybe 4+ years ago, but not now.
- lostmsu 11y agoThat is so very true. The worst part is - I had a prototype in 2012, but never actually finished it until now. Hope this will find its place in enterprise, where every dollar matters.
- farawayea 11y agoDo you want to open it up or make it possible to extend? I want to experiment with this, but not having the caching code and SSD handling code for the windows kernel doesn't help. There are no reliable and trustworthy alternatives. Have you tried to combine RAM and SSD caching already?
- jarfil 11y ago8TB SSDs are still kind of expensive, and when you get to fill just half of that with a few million files on a HDD, just listing the drive contents becomes painfully slow. It surely wouldn't hurt to keep the small files and directories cached on an SSD with several orders of magnitude faster random access.
- theandrewbailey 11y agoNo one I know of has an 8TB SSD. Even a 1TB SSD is rather spacious, unless you carry your entire DVD and music collection with you. I thought we had clouds and NASes for that stuff.
- pkroll 11y agoGames. Modern games are huge. My Steam folder is just over 400 gig, and I've got only 28 programs in it.
- theandrewbailey 11y agoThat's my point. You would still have lots of space left on a 1TB SSD.
- vardump 11y agoLightly compressed (= high dynamic range, low amount of compression artefacts -> possible to still do postproduction) video takes a lot of space. 1080p is easily at least 50 Mbps (6MB/s+). Same for 4k video is probably at least 100 Mbps (but I'd guess less than 200 Mbps). 1 TB is nothing for video like that.
- acqq 11y agoThe other big problem is that there's less and less people using anything but the notebooks, where it's effectively either HDD or SSD.